Appeal Decision

Site visit made on 15 September 2015

by Mrs A Fairclough MA BSc(Hons) LLB(Hons) PGDipLP(Bar) IHBC MRTPi an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

Decision date: 29 October 2015

Appeal Ref: APP/M9496/W/15/3033489 Ashmount, Smalldale, Bradwell, Hope Valley S33 9LQ

- The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission.
- The appeal is made by Mrs Patricia Lesley Ollerenshaw against the decision of Peak District National Park Authority.
- The application Ref: NP/DDD/1114/1157 dated 5 November 2014, was refused by notice dated 23 January 2015.
- The development proposed is described as “a lean-to has been constructed on the back on an existing agricultural building, which was granted planning permission several years ago. The lean-to consists of a blocked supporting wall with corrugated roof and doors. It is to be used for storing hay for my livestock. Please note that the dates I have listed below are approximate dates”.

Decision

1. The appeal is dismissed.

Procedural Matters

2. A single storey lean-to extension attached to a building has already been built at the site. However, I consider that the scheme as built is materially different to the appeal proposal before me. In particular, the drawings do not indicate the door or cladding on the northeast facing elevation and as such, the scheme as built is not in accordance with the submitted plans. I will determine this appeal on the basis of the submitted plans.

3. I note that the Council is dealing with enforcement matters relating to this site. However, I am required to determine the appeal on the planning merits alone. Accordingly, I will determine the appeal on this basis.

Main Issue

4. The main issue in this case are the effect of the appeal proposal on the character and appearance of the countryside location.

Reasons

Character

05. The appeal site is a field located adjacent to the settlement of Smalldale on its northern fringes. It is located within the open countryside. One of the core planning principles is take account of the roles and character of different areas including recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside as stated in the National Planning Policy Framework (The Framework). The appeal site is also within the Peak District National Park (PDNP). The two purposes of National Parks(^1) are to conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the area, and to promote opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of National Parks by the public. The Framework also states that great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks, which have the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty.

06. The appeal site edged in red is part of an agricultural land holding. The field which form part of the site edged in red, and within which the appeal host building and the scheme as built are located, is undulating and is part of a steeply rising hillside. It has fences, walls and hedges as well as livestock pens and shelters dotted around the field. This is typical of the upland farm landscape within the PDNP and as such, it contributes to the character of the countryside.

07. The appellant seeks approval for a lean-to extension (the appeal proposal). The appeal proposal is attached to the northwestern elevation of the dual pitched host building. The host building is some 9.75m in length and 4.7m wide. The plans indicate that the appeal proposal is some 2.2m wide and some 7.8m in length and is lower in height than the host building as it continues the plane of the host building’s roof slope.

08. The Council states that the appeal proposal is not sufficiently justified for its location. Saved Policy LC13 of the Peak District National Park Local Plan (LP) adopted in 2001 states, amongst other things, that new agricultural buildings will be permitted if they are close to the main group of buildings and make the best use of existing buildings. The supporting paragraphs to this policy require that applications should be accompanied by full explanations of the agricultural proposals with which they are associated to allow for proper assessment. This policy accords with the Framework and, as such, I accord it significant weight.

09. The Framework also states that sustainable growth and expansion of all types of businesses and enterprise in rural areas should be supported by both conversion of existing buildings and well-designed new buildings.

10. I have also been referred to a Supplementary Planning Document entitled Agricultural Developments in the Peak District National Park (SPD) dated 2003. This provides guidance for new agricultural buildings, which indicates that if you do not supply sufficient information to justify a new agricultural building then the application may be refused.

11. The agricultural landholding comprises the field in Smalldale, as referred to above in paragraph 6, which is some 1.0ha, 2 parcels of land at Castleton, which total approximately 4ha and further rented land there around 1.5ha. The appellant states she has a flock of 60 ewes, which are kept on her land. One of the parcels of land near Castleton produces hay crops to feed the sheep in the winter months. The land at Castleton includes a small open fronted shelter. The field in Smalldale holds several structures including pens and open structures for the shelter and stabling of livestock. However, she states that the only watertight building on this land is the large block building, to which the scheme as built is attached. The appellant states that this building is used for the storage of machinery, equipment and items in connection with agriculture on the holding e.g. a quad bike, trailer, feeding racks, barriers and

(^1) Section 11A(2) of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 other portable items plus tools in connection with maintenance of the small holding. These items are stored here as it is the most secure storage available.

12. She argues that the scheme as built is used for the storage of hay on the basis that other than the host building none of the other structures on the land holding are watertight and that it is accessible by a large vehicles and trailers. Thus, she contends that the host building is required for other agricultural purposes and that the scheme as built is necessary for the storage of hay.

13. The Council indicates that one of the open shelters has been used for the storage of hay. However, the appellant says that the open shelters are also used to house all the sheep in the inclement weather and during the lambing season or for the stabling of horses.

14. At the site visit, the open structures and pens were not in use as there were no livestock present at the appeal site because they were grazing at Castleton. The appeal scheme as built was completely full of bales of hay.

15. The host building is substantial, as described by the appellant, and I saw several large and small items stored within it, including some domestic and gardening items and a boiler/flue as well as items associated with agriculture. However, although the appellant states that there is no possibility of space being made available for the amount of the hay crop, the host building is large and even with the quad bike and trailer storage and the removal of the small number of domestic items, there is no actual evidence before me to suggest that the hay could not be stored within the host building as it is watertight, spacious and accessible by large vehicles and trailers.

16. On the evidence before me, I am not convinced that the best use is made of the host building and linked to that whether the appeal proposal is necessary for agricultural purposes. I note the appellant has suggested a condition restricting the use of the appeal proposal to agriculture. However, although I note the host building has been used for domestic storage purposes in the past, such a condition would not overcome the concern I have regarding whether the proposal is justified as necessary agricultural development in the countryside and PDNP.

Appearance

17. The originating planning application indicates that the appeal proposal is constructed of blocks with a box profile sheet roof covering, which would match the host building. Whilst the use of concrete block and sheet metal does not reflect the traditional character or appearance of the countryside within the PDNP, and such developments are normally resisted on the grounds they are neither characteristic or recessive in colour/finish, the amount of block work visible is relatively small due to its position, which is the least obtrusive on the appeal site, and its relative height. Therefore, the further impact of the extension in terms of relative form and use of materials is low on the appearance of the locality.

18. However, the roof of the host building is finished in a dark colour and the scheme as built is finished the pale coloured sheet metal roof of the scheme as built, which creates a significant contrast with the adjacent sheet metal roof on the host building, appears prominent and incongruous when viewed from public vantage points on the road and nearby public footpath. Therefore, the scheme as built causes sufficient harm to have a detrimental effect on the appearance of the locality.

19. The appellant has suggested that the appeal proposal could be conditioned in terms of the finish of the roof material such that it could be painted to reflect the dark recessive roof of the host building and this would overcome any harm to the appearance of the PDNP. In my view, the imposition of a condition to ensure that the roofs match each other in terms of dark recessive colour finish would help to lessen the impact of the appeal proposal to the extent it would assist to conserve the natural beauty of the PDNP.

20. The Council also refers to a bright reflective door. However, although a galvanised agricultural specification door was cited under materials on the originating planning application, it was omitted from the submitted plan and elevation drawings and, therefore, cannot be conditioned. This has not been considered in this appeal.

Conclusions

21. I consider that the harmful effect of the appeal proposal on the appearance of the area could be overcome by the imposition of a condition relating to the roof. On this basis the appeal proposal does not conflict with Policy L1 of the Peak District National Park Local Development Framework adopted in 2011, which requires, amongst other things, that development must conserve and enhance valued landscape character. In addition, it is not contrary to saved LP Policy LC4 and relevant aspects of saved Policy LC13, which require, amongst other things that development should also relate well in terms of scale, design, mass, colouring in relation to other/existing buildings and be the least obtrusive in terms of location. These policies are consistent with the Framework and as such, I accord them considerable weight. It would also be in accordance with the objectives of the Framework.

22. However, I am concerned that the appeal proposal is not necessary and has not been sufficiently justified for the purposes of agriculture in this countryside location within the PDNP. Consequently. I consider that, in terms of character, the statutory duty of conserving landscape and scenic beauty in the PDNP has not been demonstrated. Therefore, this is the determining issue in this case and I consider the appeal proposal would be detrimental to the character of the locality and conflicts with the relevant elements of LP Policy LC13 and the Framework. In addition, it would not follow the objectives of the SPD.

23. For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.

Mrs A Fairclough

INSPECTOR